oldmanfan

They were not going to spend millions on a backup QB because they want to clear cap space. It's that simple. What this really comes down to now is they should have gotten a veteran guy in when they traded McCarron. That's a legitimate criticism. They could have sweetened the offer to Anderson, could have maybe traded for a guy with the pick they got back for McCarron. That would have gotten whomever a few more weeks to learn the offense. But, again, Peterman played great in pre-season and , yes, everyone wants to talk about how the pre-season doesn't count, etc. But he earned a shot. And for whatever reason the kid throws up all over himself in regular season games. So they go to Allen, which I think everyone knew was coming and, again, one can argue it would have been better to have him sit, etc. We tend as fans to see things in a vacuum. For example, some say we should have kept Taylor and drafted a kid. The money for a backup aside, maybe Taylor had no interest in staying under those circumstances. We say they should have kept McCarron. We'll somewhere on this board it was reported yesterday McCarron wanted out if he wasn't the starter. How exactly does it help keeping a guy that doesn't want to be here? So we'll have a couple weeks with I presume Anderson as starter. I cannot imagine they'll start Peterman again. With the D playing the way it is, we have a good shot Sunday, and will lose the NE. Then Allen is back and we go forward.

No I don't see your point. Beathard has been around the league a lot more with better players around him. Allen is just getting started.

According toTasker they were trying to get Anderson in since the summer. Should have sweetened the deal enough to get him in. Other guys like Moore are done with football

Would have cost them like 15 million. For a guy that they knew wasn't the answer. That's a lot of money for a backup QB. And if you haven't noticed Star is doing a pretty good job. They should have sweetened the deal enough to get Anderson in when they traded McCarron.

I think concern is certainly warranted. Unjustified panic is not

They are the same. Sprained ligaments have tearing of fibers.

It is all hyperbole based on no real information right now. Calm down.

Ligaments are relatively avascular cinnective tissue. They can repair on their own but it takes a long time.

His career: 58% completion rate, 10TD/11Int, rating around 78. About what I'd expect of a backup guy. Some good, some bad. Seems like a pretty good second guy to have. And not utterly false, just at odds with your opinion that you apparently confuse with fact. Allen has played 5 games with a weaker supporting cast. We'll see how he does.

What the hell are you talking about? I said they should have gotten a veteran guy and they took McCarron. I also said that the other FAs that were in their price range were all the same guy, and that they should have gotten one when they decided to trade McCarron. And I said Bridgewater's knee scared tgem off as well as many other teams. ignore? You don't actually read what is posted. Good point.

It is inaccurate

Beathard and Osweiler each played OK this week. And odds are big they will have poor games coming up. But because of one game their history is ignored and some here complain we don't have either of them.

I will go back to what I said before. Knowing they were drafting a guy round 1 (and knowing they were going to clear cap space) they were not in the market to go after a Keenum or Bradford. So they looked at lower tier FAs and McCarron made sense. Then Peterman played great in preseason and McCarron didn't. Their mistake was not bringing in a guy as soon as McCarron went. But from what Tasker said they were trying. And of course Peterman throws up on himself. I agree about Jones. But they did bring him in for a look and we don't know how that went.

Yes. From what Tasker said today they were trying to get Anderson for quite a while, right?

True. In March. When everyone had concerns if he could play at all.

I'm quite sure his knee had teams scared to death. He's lucky he still has that leg.

I think there is justifiable criticism that they didn't have a vet like Anderson in when McCarron got traded, although someoneposted today they were trying to get Anderson in since the summer. That said, if they brought Anderson in 6 weeks ago, would that have meant theBills were brilliant? Would it have negated "lunacy"? Of course not.

And back to my statements above on Peterman. The guy earned a spot in his preseasons then throws up on himself in regular season games. I think Anderson starts Sunday. A vet with our D should be able to win that one.

And thus my statements above. They can be rightfully criticized for not bringing in a vet like these guys when they traded McCarron but none of these guys really stands out over the other.

Not a FA. Would have been an in division trade, and would the Jets have done that?

You say the FA QBs weren't the same. Fine. Who would you have signed, knowing you weren't in the market for the high priced guys since you were drafting a guy? Yiu made the claim they weren't all the same. Back it up. Guess so.

Yeah but he consistently did well in preseason and earned a spot. Then he just does what he does in games. Just a mystery to me.

But Peterman was clearly better than McCarron in preseason. The mystery is why Peterman throws up on himself

Ok. They weren't going to spend a fortune in a guy knowing they were drafting a guy. So then you look at veterans like Anderson, McCarron, etc., etc. and I'm not defending it; I said above they should have brought another vet in earlier when they traded McCarron. So two questions for you: 1. Who was the standout(s) making them not all the same? 2. Have you learned to read?

Who would you have brought in? Bradford? Hah! The FA available QBs were all about the same. And knowing they were going to draft a young guy no way they were going to spend huge dollars on someone like a Keenum.